Hi Eddie,the name gallus giganteus is the name associated to leg and toe bones and descriptions given to Coenraad Temminck not a mythical fowl.

malayiod fowl antecedent such as the red jungles fowls will pre-date mans origins.

with the chance of the EIC bringing malayoid fowl back to Britain as early as 1594, the excitement created by the importation of malay, kulm, Chittagong or deang fowl only suggests they were introduced in the early 1800s. this is well short of 500 years.I would be eager to read any literature that shows otherwise.

Hi Eddie,let me re-phrase that 2nd statement 'malayiod fowls originator/predecessor/forefather such as the red jungle fowls' originator/predecessor/forefather will pre-date mans originator/predecessor/forefather. I definitely believe that malay and red jungle fowl have not originated from the same antecedent. sure they are both in the order galliformes but malayoid did not evolve from gallus bankiva.300 and 400 year old game fowl books. I think there would be many gamefowl people on this site interested in seeing these bookswho are the authors what is the actual year of print and please speak to a moderator quickly about posting them here.

Hen: The thing is there is no scientific evidence for the Malay game fowl having a different origin. The further back you go the smaller they are and it is only in the more modern archaeology in Malaysia that bigger fowl bones are to be found with a gradual increase in size as time went on.

I don't think that its just a coincidence either that the cultures that have a long history of eating chicken you find large chickens.

Hen: The thing is there is no scientific evidence for the Malay game fowl having a different origin. ...

Indeed, there is scientific evidence (molecular genetic aka DNA evidence) to indicate that 'Malayoid' and "Bankivoid' fowl are likely to have the same origin: refer to my post from Sat May 11, 2013 11:28 pm - even if you don't want to read the post, just look at the last picture: it shows that Shamo and Leghorns are genetically more similar than some strains of Red Junglefowl are to any domestic fowl.

Hi Htul,this study shows that more than likely members of the RFLP type V were the main contributors to domestication, but members of the other RFLP types did contribute also. any member of the RFLP type V that we don't know their full history could have been the main contributor to domestication. it doesn't prove all fowl are descendant of RJFwith domestication comes interbreeding.they tested only 2 malay. Why? because they accept Darwins' theory based on the fact that only RJF are still able to be found in the wild.what would be found if they tested 30 malay from varying parts of the world. as it shows the leghorns were Hiroshima variants and shamo influence is in a lot of japanese birds. I think a study on how malay leg bone marrow has manifested from hollow flight bones will produce more light on where birds originated from and who should be the bearer of the name 'gallus giganteus'

Historical text with content that may be offensive to some. Open spoiler box at your own discretion.

Spoiler

Quote Gervase Markham from THE PLEASURES OF PRINCES "To speak then art of the choice of the fighting cock, you shall understand that the best characters you can observe in him is the shape, colour, courage, and sharpe heel for his shape the middle and indifferent size is ever accounted best, because they be ever most matchable, strong, nimble,and ready for your pleasure, whereas the huge cocks (which we call the turn-pocke) is ever hard to find and equal, lubberly, and affording small pleasure in his battle: and so the exceeding little cock is as hard to match,"

He would be of a proud and upright shape with a small head like onto a spar-hawke, a quick large eye, and a strong beek crook and big at the setting on, and in colour subtle to the plume of his feathers, as black, yellow, or reddith. The beam of his leg would be very strong, and according to his plume, blue grey or yellow: his spurres long rough and sharp, a little bending and looking inward. For his colour the grey pyle, the yellow pyle or the red with the black breast, is esteemed the best: the pyde is not so good, and the white and dunne are the worst. If he be red about the head like scarlet it is a sign of lust strength, and courage but if he be pale it is a sign of sickness and faintness,"

The Matching Of Cocks Now when you bring him into the pit to fight you must have especial care to the matching of him, for in that art consisteth the greatest glory of the cock-master for what availeth it to feed never so well, if in the matching you give him that advantage which overthroweth all your former labour. Therefore in your matching there is two things to be considered that is, the length of cocks, and the strenght of cocks: for if your adversary cock be too long, yours shall hardly catch his head , and then he can neither indanger eye or life: and if he be the stronger, he will over-bear your cock, and not suffer him to rise, and strike with any advantage therefore, for the knowledge of these two rules, though experience be the best tutor, yet the first, which is length, you shall judge by your eye when you grip the cock about the waist, and make him shut out his legs, in which posture you shall see the upmost of his height, and to compare them in your judgement. Now for his strenght, which is known by the thickness of his body, for that cock is ever held the strongest which is largest in the girth, you shall know it by the measure of your hands, griping the cock about from the points of your great fingers, to the joints of your thumbs, and either of these advantage by no means give to your adversary, but if you doubt less in the one, yet be sure to gain the other; for the weak long cock will rise at most ease, and the most strong cock will give the surer blow, so that because all cocks are not cast in a mould, there may be a reconciliation of the advantages, yet by all means give as little as you can."

I have followed with interest this thread and discussion on the theory of Gallus Gigantus versus Gallus Bankiva as source of Malay type game fowls.To date I have resisted making a contribution to the discussion but later today will add my own opinion on the origins and why I hold that opinion.However now to read and try to understand Terrier Mans last lengthy post you must substitute "s" in all words where an "f" appears, this is to modernise and make sense of the "old english" text contained.I have now read it from start to finish in it's lengthy entirity.To sum up, the post adds nothing or contributes anything to the discussion on Gallus Gigantus and as such would be better posted under any subject heading relating to the pit or cockfighting, a subject not discussed or allowed on this forum.I will as stated make a post later based on 40 yrs breeding Malay Game and coming from a family history of pit game and cockfighting, not a practice I have ever engaged in but am very aware of all it's finer practices and ritual.

Oaklands,I am very interested in your thoughts on the origins of malayiod fowl.there are some interesting theories. I am sure you would be interested in reading a post regarding the quechua type fowl of south America.I wont add a link, but if you type in quechua in your search engine you will find a post that talks of these birds and also refers to gallus giganteus of the Austronesian people.there is a lot of theories that would suggest bill plant was heading in the right direction regarding malay origins.

Thank you.Anything on the subject and/or specifically the breed is ALWAYS of interest, will follow it up.I just have to pace myself atm after a serious heart attack less than 3 weeks ago.It's why I had not yet made the promised post on this subject.At times the mind makes appointments the body can't keep, YET !!I'll get there, just have to be patient.I'll get back to you ASAP.

I'm sorry that ASAP has proven to be such a long time.I did not realise how many topics or how much discussion had taken place since my last post on this subject on 27th Nov 2013.I first read of this theory that Malays today had or could have decended from a seperate genus of ancient species, namely Gallus Gigantus,in Lewis Wrights book of Poultry the book itself 100 yrs old or more since it's original publication.He or the author who penned the contribution went into some detail as to why he thought that a possibility.He was definite in stressing that it was not exclusively from GG which he hypothesised had long become extinct but from interbreeding at some time between GG and some other species of wild or domesticated pheasant.That being said I saw merit in his arguement and what I observe in Malays as we know them today. Looking around my own fowls here in partial moult, who could deny thier decendance from some prehistoric dinasaur like being, the resemblace is uncanny.I guess the starting point is firstly it's uniqueness, so different to any other breed unless it's a breed resulting from modern day incorporation into other breeds or in the making of other breeds.It's size,stance, demeanor and general appearance to say nothing yet of it's unique breed traits and characteristics.The obvious are its, great size and power, 3 equal curves,sparse feathering, down turned spur, heavybone and large feet, heavy beetle brow and eye colour, these can be seen at a glance by even the most uninitiated in the breed standard requirements.Now we need to look further.How some can flatly deny some other influence, namely Gallus Gigantus, and put all these characteristics and more down to all fowls decending from one or two genus of pheasant is hard for me to understand.The Malay has so many more unique traits, characteristics and qualities that cannot be explained by that simple explanation.In Lewis Wrights explanation he hypothesised that GG was a ground dweller not a tree dweller like most pheasnat genus's ,this is demonstrated by it's thick dense bone , long limbs and powerful feet.This was to tear down ant nests, chase and catch small rodents and reptiles on the floor of a dense undergrowth forest, typical of where the Malay breed originated, it's bone was dense to achieve these physical feats.It did not require the light frame/body or hollow bone of the other pheasant genus's as it had no need to fly from area to area after seeds and to follow the ripening harvests in different areas.As a result it's digestive track is shorter and more capable of digesting and utilising animal protiens, this results in greater size and robust structure.If you doubt or question the Malays ability to thrive on a higher protein or animal based diet just watch a Malay eat and swollow whole mice and small rodents with no ill effects.This greater need for protien I see when Malays are raised on animal protiens and turkey feed which is much higher than predominantly plant based protiens in poultry feeds.The former gets great size and bone, the later a smaller, finer example of the breed.To this end the requirement of strong bone and muscle the Malay needs open spaces to move and exercise or leg weaness results.The comb in thick dense undergrowth needs to be compact and close to the head, a large single comb would soon be damaged in this terrain,likewise the thick heavy brow protects the eye proper in similar conditions.The beak in being so thick and strong enables it to catch and tear away animal flesh to enable it to eat large prey, either caught or opportunistically discovered. The original and predominant colours or wheaten and partrige black red are a good camoflage in the undergrwth and it's height and reach are benificial to keep an eye out for possible predators.I have no personal theory as to the origins of a roached back but as it appears that it may give grater leverage and power to the lower limbs and feet.A similar back in a bird of flight would only hinder it's movement and efficient flight.But as the Malay and it's deriviants are the only breeds that domonstrate this backline I can only assume it is a residual trait from a long lost ancestor.The down turned tail is again resulting from the downward sweeping backline, like the comb such a tail set would be benificial and not be damaged in it's normal environment as would a tail set and carried above the horizontal.The othe rinteresting fact of the tail is the manner it is "played", it fans side to side not up and down like other breeds, it is a specific breed requirement and overlooked by most.Another fact is that Malays and most if not all oriental breeds have only 14 proper/primary tail feathers as against 16 for any of the breeds descended from Gallus Bankiva.Then we have the shorten breast bone, again a result of not needing to fly, the flight muscles are attached in the breast, the best flighers have a longer breast for the muscle attachment, the Malay and deriviant breeds have a shorter broader breast to enable power and strength, not of the wings but lower limbs of legs, thighs and feet.This was no more evidenced than some years ago the introduction of Indian bantam blood into spangle OEG bantams to broaden the shoulder, flatten the back and intensify the mahogany colour.These aims were achieved but the alien cross was always visable in the lack of sickles and tail length and the give away short keel.To be cont:

In it's normal habitat of origin it did not need long dence feathering, the forest floor was warm, the shorter wings easier to move freely in the undergrowth, they were not required for flight, maybe just enough to roost about nocturnal predators on the ground.The normal moult pattern with Malays can be and is different to other breeds.Where other breeds lose and regrow a new plumage in the autumn to be ready with thick new feathers to protect over winter the Malay is more leisurely in moulting, it does not need new feathers quickly to enable it to fly thus avoiding predators and danger and so it moults not over a few weeks but often progressively over 2 or 3 mths, the whole time it can continue to lay during the moult,unique as no other breed does this.This is achieved by not having expended all available energy on new feathers in the shortest possible time.The fact the moult often is initiated in autumn could be attributed to that characteristic being inherited from the Gallus Bankiva infusion in it's history and make-up.My experience of many breeds is that the Malay is one of, if not the most intelligent of breeds, the broad skull allows for greater brain size which could explain this, from an early age Malays learn quickly and adapt to any change in routine or circumstance and demonstrate a quiet disposition and readily seek out human company, I feel this is evidence of intelligence, a long domestication and familiarity with humans.The presence of the cushion type comb, heavy protective brow, eye colour, roached back, down turned tail, 14 tail feathers played side to side, short keel,short wings, dense bone, legs flat at shin but rounded towards the down turned spur, extended moult, laying in the moult,quiet placid temperament, ability to utilise a higher protein diet, massive size and great mass cannot all be contributed to it having it's origins in a small light grain eating flighty ancestor.It suggests all of these unique characteristics must come from somewhere, that somewhere has to be an ancestor that itself possessed most if not all these traits.I accept the theory of evolution and origin of species as an explanation for most things but to find all these unique characteristics one breed when they are not found in any other breed suggests to me a single seperate or highly influental source in its origins.

interesting observations Oaklands, variants such as tail feather numbers and the way they are 'played' are small variations but enough to give thought to a different line of ancestry.I have been reading of island gigantism and the elephant bird of Madagascar. A 3m flightless bird which became extinct only as late as the early 18th century. this clearly shows how isolation from predators can change how animals can evolve and how man has adverse effects to isolated populations.there are several things that make me think that gallus giganteus ancestors do not come from RJF.1) is the genetics of the comb,PP,RR is the complete opposite to the RJF single comb pp,rr.2) not having hollow (leg)bone.3)and as you point out the shortened keel where flight muscles should be connected. this is part of the definition of the term 'ratites'. pertaining to large flightless birds such as emu ,cassowary and the extinct elephant bird and moas.is gallus giganteus the missing link between ratites and galliforme birds?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum